Operating Policy and Procedure

PURPOSE: The purpose of this Operating Policy/Procedure (OP) is to outline and delineate the
procedures that will be followed in the event that allegations of misconduct in research
or scholarly activity or of retaliation because of such allegations should be made
against a member of the faculty, a member of the staff, or a student at Texas Tech
University. The intent of this policy is to provide an institutional response to accusations
of misconduct and, at the same time, to ensure that the individual accused of such
misconduct has full opportunity to refute the allegations and present the pertinent
facts. Purposeful misconduct in research and scholarship is unethical. All members
of the university community are responsible for reporting instances of misconduct
in research or scholarly activity or of retaliation.

REVIEW: This OP will be reviewed in February of odd-numbered years by the Vice President
for Research with substantive revisions forwarded to the Provost and Senior Vice President
(PSVP).

SCOPE

This policy applies to all research, scholarly, and creative activity conducted at
Texas Tech University. The policy does not apply to course work and other academic
class activities that are covered by other policies (e.g., OP 34.12, Grading Procedures, Student Handbook, and Code of Student Conduct). This policy applies to any member of the faculty, a member of the staff, or a student
at Texas Tech University.

This policy and the procedures herein will be followed when a university official
receives an allegation of misconduct in scientific or other scholarly activity or
of retaliation because of such allegations. Circumstances of the reported case may
require deviation from the normal procedure in order to meet the best interests of
the university and parties involved. Any change in procedures must ensure fair treatment
of the individual subject to the allegation, and any substantial changes of the procedure
must be approved by the Vice President for Research (VPR) in advance of the change.

Difficulties are presented when an allegation of misconduct is brought after a significant
passage of time from when the alleged misconduct occurred. As a result, it is common
for institutions or other governmental bodies to restrict allegations that may be
brought after the passage of a predetermined amount of time.

DEFINITIONS

1. Allegation – Any oral or written statement or indication of possible misconduct

2. Complainant – A person who makes an allegation

3. Conflict of Interest – A conflict of interest refers to a situation in which an
employee's financial, professional, or other personal considerations may directly
or indirectly affect or have the appearance of affecting the employee's judgment in
exercising any duty or responsibility, including the conduct or reporting of research,
owed to the institution. For more information regarding TTU policy on conflict of
interest, see TTU OP 10.20, Conflict of Interest and Commitment Policy.

5. Investigation – The formal examination and evaluation of all relevant facts to
determine if misconduct has occurred and, if so, to determine the responsible person
and the seriousness of the conduct

6. Good Faith Allegation − An allegation made with the honest belief that scientific
misconduct may have occurred. An allegation is not in good faith if made with reckless
disregard for or willful ignorance of facts that would disprove the allegation.

7. Malicious Intent – Intent to do harm in the making of an allegation: a report
made when the report was not true and the complainant knew it was not true, but made
the report anyway to harm the respondent.

8. Misconduct – Includes fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing,
performing, or reviewing research or in reporting research results. It also includes
ordering, advising, or suggesting that subordinates engage in research misconduct.
The misconduct must depart significantly from accepted practices of the relevant research
community and must be committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly. It does not
include honest error or differences of opinion. Misconduct includes the material failure
to comply with federal requirements for protection of researchers, human subjects,
or the public, or for ensuring the welfare of laboratory animals. Misconduct also
includes, but is not limited to, the failure to meet other legal requirements governing
research and scholarly activity.

a. Fabrication – Making up data or results and recording or reporting them

b. Falsification – Manipulating search materials, equipment, or processes, or changing
or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in
the research record

9. Research Integrity Officer (RIO) − The institutional official responsible for
assessing allegations of research misconduct to determine if they fall within the
definition of research misconduct and warrant an inquiry on the basis that the allegation
is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct
may be identified.

10. Respondent – The person(s) against whom an allegation of scientific misconduct
is directed or the person whose actions are the subject of the inquiry or investigation.
There can be more than one respondent in any inquiry or investigation.

11. Retaliation – Any adverse action or credible threat of an adverse action taken
by a covered institution, or member thereof, in response to a complainant's good faith
allegation of research, scholarly, or creative misconduct

PROCEDURE

If an allegation of misconduct in research or other scholarly activity is made against
a member of the Texas Tech University faculty, staff, or student body, and the alleged
misconduct involves extramural funding, the RIO, in consultation with the VPR, shall
consult with the source of the extramural funds for guidance on investigating, reporting,
and responding to such allegations. Texas Tech University shall first look to any
interested organized entity for guidelines in responding to allegations of misconduct
in research or scholarly activity.

If an allegation of misconduct in research or other scholarly activity is made against
a member of the Texas Tech University faculty, staff, or student body, the allegation
shall be dealt with in the following manner:

1. Reporting Misconduct or Retaliation

a. All reports of alleged fraud, misconduct, and retaliation under this policy
shall be directed to the RIO. Upon receipt of a formal, written, and signed allegation
of fraud, misconduct, or retaliation, the RIO shall initiate an inquiry.

b. There shall be no retaliation against any complainant who makes a good faith
report or complaint under this policy.

2. Cooperation with Research Misconduct Proceedings

Institutional members will cooperate with the RIO and other institutional officials
in the review of allegations and the conduct of inquiries and investigations. Institutional
members, including respondents, have an obligation to provide evidence relevant to
research misconduct allegations to the RIO or other institutional officials.

3. Inquiry

a. The RIO is to make an immediate inquiry into the allegations. The RIO shall
make an initial finding of whether:

(1) The subject matter and individuals accused in the reported allegation are within
the scope of this policy.

(2) The allegations are sufficient to warrant an investigation into the alleged
misconduct.

b. An inquiry shall consist of information gathering and initial fact finding to
determine whether an allegation of misconduct warrants an investigation. No presumption
that misconduct occurred is created if the RIO determines that an investigation is
warranted. Inquiry procedures will be determined by the circumstances of the allegations,
but shall include notification of the individual against whom the allegation is made.
The inquiry shall be completed within 60 days after receipt of the allegation. Any
extension of this period will be based on good cause, approved in advance by the VPR,
and recorded in the inquiry file.

c. As a part of the inquiry, the RIO shall take appropriate action to preserve
original research records and materials and all documents relevant to the inquiry.
If appropriate, the RIO shall take interim administrative actions to protect federal
funds and ensure that the purposes of the grant or contract are being carried out.

d. All persons involved in the inquiry shall make diligent efforts to protect the
identity of the complainant during the inquiry phase. If the process reaches the investigative
phase, the right of the respondent to confront the complainant may require that the
identity of the complainant be revealed. There shall be no retaliation against a complainant
for his/her good faith allegation of misconduct.

e. At the time of or before beginning an inquiry, the RIO shall make a good faith
effort to notify the respondent in writing. If the inquiry later identifies additional
respondents, the RIO shall notify them in writing. On or before the date on which
the respondent is notified or the inquiry begins, whichever is earlier, the RIO shall
take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of all research records,
including computer records, and evidence needed to conduct the inquiry, inventory
the records and evidence, and sequester them in a secure manner. If the research records
or evidence comprise instruments shared by a number of users, custody may be limited
to copies of the data or evidence on such instruments, as long as those copies are
substantially equivalent to the evidentiary value of the instruments. The RIO shall
conduct the inquiry utilizing all materials and persons necessary to resolve the matter
fairly and justly. This includes, but is not limited to, reviewing documents, materials,
and other pertinent information from research, as well as conducting interviews of
personnel. Normally, at the inquiry stage, the interviews will only include the claimant
and respondent; however, the RIO may interview other persons relevant to the investigation
if necessary. The respondent will have the opportunity to be interviewed and to present
evidence in the initial inquiry.

f. A report of the findings from the inquiry shall be made in writing to the VPR.
Reports of inquiries shall be maintained in the office of the VPR for a period of
seven years. The respondent shall have the opportunity to review drafts of the inquiry
reports and to be informed of the results of the inquiry.

g. If results of the inquiry indicate that the allegation was made with malicious
intent, the VPR shall determine what action should be taken against the complainant.

4. Investigation

a. If the finding of the inquiry is that an investigation is warranted, the VPR
shall appoint an ad hoc committee within 30 days after completion and/or reception
of the report finding an investigation is warranted. The purpose of the investigation
is to:

• Explore in detail the allegations;• Examine all evidence in depth;• Determine if misconduct has occurred, by whom, and to what extent; and• Report to the VPR the committee's findings as to whether or not the allegations
have, in the committee's opinion, sufficient basis in fact for the university to consider
disciplinary action against the individual.

The investigation should also determine whether additional circumstances exist that
warrant the expansion of the scope of the investigation beyond the initial allegations.

b. The ad hoc committee will consist of three to five persons chosen by the VPR,
in consultation with the chairperson or other appropriate official having administrative
jurisdiction over the academic unit in which the individual holds principal academic
appointment. The VPR shall appoint one ex-officio member of the committee from the
Texas Tech University Faculty Senate. Insofar as possible, the members of the committee
will be persons having sufficient acquaintance with research and scholarship in the
discipline in question so that they can assess the allegation. In appointing the investigating
committee, the VPR shall select impartial experts and make efforts to avoid real or
apparent conflicts of interest. Committee members shall have the requisite expertise,
based on the VPR's discretion, to effectively review and evaluate all relevant facts
and materials.

c. The VPR shall notify the respondent of the proposed committee membership. If
the respondent submits a written objection to an appointed member of the committee
based on a bias or conflict of interest within five days after notification, the VPR
will determine whether to replace the individual with a qualified substitute.

d. The VPR shall prepare a charge for the ad hoc committee describing the allegations
made and any related issues identified prior to the investigation. The charge shall
define scientific misconduct and identify the name of the respondent. The charge shall
state that the committee is to evaluate the evidence and testimony of the complainant,
respondent, and witnesses to determine whether, based upon a preponderance of the
evidence, scientific misconduct occurred, who was responsible, and its seriousness.

e. The investigating committee shall complete the investigation within 120 days.
Any extension of this period will be based on good cause and approved in advance by
the VPR. If the committee judges that disciplinary action is warranted, the committee
will also make a recommendation to the VPR concerning what action should be taken.
Possible disciplinary actions include, but are not limited to:

• Issuing a formal reprimand;• Requiring special administrative arrangements to ensure compliance with applicable
regulations;• Restricting particular research activities;• Removing the individual from the graduate faculty; and• Filing a formal charge of unfitness for continued employment at Texas Tech University.

f. The respondent shall be treated fairly and his/her identity shall be kept confidential
to the extent possible without compromising public health or safety or the ability
to conduct the investigation efficiently and effectively. The respondent shall have
the opportunity to review all evidence and to present evidence. The respondent is
entitled to employ outside counsel at his/ her own expense for the duration of the
proceedings. The respondent's counsel may accompany the respondent in meetings but
may not ask questions or offer testimony. The respondent shall have the opportunity
to review all drafts of the investigation reports and to be informed of the committee's
decision.

5. Action

a. If the inquiry or investigation involves a project funded by the Public Health
Service (PHS), the National Science Foundation (NSF), or other agencies that have
mandated notification policies, the VPR shall follow the respective agency's policies
regarding notification.

b. Following the investigation, the VPR, in consultation with the PSVP, shall decide
what action should be taken.

c. Records of the proceedings and the committee's findings shall be maintained
in the office of the VPR for a period of seven years following the close of the investigation
and the acceptance of any reports required by federal agencies.

6. Appeal

a. Any person who has been found by the preceding procedures to have committed
misconduct in research or scholarly activity may appeal that finding to the President
of Texas Tech University if the person alleges the decision is:

• Not based on consideration of all available evidence;• Not constitutionally permissible; or• Significantly noncompliant with the university's established standards or procedures.

This appeal must be filed in writing within 14 days after the accused is informed
of the committee's finding. Failure of the accused to appeal to the PSVP or President
within the prescribed time limits will make the decision of the VPR final.

b. Within 14 days of receiving an appeal, the PSVP or President shall begin a review
and investigation of the committee's finding and shall issue a decision on the appeal
within 45 days of the appeal. In considering the appeal, the PSVP or President may
act alone or involve others, as appropriate. The decision of the appeal shall be final.